Suddenly, a lot appears to be changing as regards the question of judicially deciding the status of the land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid stood until its demolition in December 1992. The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court to postpone by a week its pronouncement of verdict on the title suit. The verdict in the 60-year-old case was scheduled for Friday (September 24). The intervention of the country’s highest court means that September 30 is the last clear date on which the high court may have the opportunity to deliver its judgment. The following day (October 1), one of the judges on the high court bench is scheduled to retire. If that were to happen, and the court has not spoken on September 30, it is likely that the verdict in the title suit pending for six decades will be postponed still further.
The reason for this unanticipated turn of events is that the Supreme Court decided on Thursday to entertain a special leave petition by a retired bureaucrat on the need to give more time to the parties to the land dispute to settle the matter through negotiation. On September 28, the two-judge Supreme Court bench is due to hear the arguments of the petitioner. On doing so it could decide to dismiss the SLP. In that event, the Allahabad high court (Lucknow bench) could proceed to give its judgment by September 30. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court finds it needs more time to dispose of the SLP, the pronouncing of the verdict in the title suit will in all likelihood be deferred.
It is interesting that last week the Lucknow bench had dismissed the same petitioner’s plea for deferment, calling it “mischievous”. In the understanding of the high court, when the parties to the land dispute had been unable for as long as 60 years to come to a negotiated settlement, it was unlikely they could do so now in a matter of days. Notwithstanding the stance of the high court, the Supreme Court has entertained the SLP (it was a split decision). It has also sent a notice to the Attorney-General of India, besides the contending parties to the land dispute. This suggests that the Centre is being invited to make its observations on the substance of the SLP. The plea contained in the petition is that communal disorder and violence might grip the nation if a verdict is tendered in the title suit at the present juncture, and this may be too much for the country to bear, considering the fragile internal security situation on account of the Kashmir issue and the Naxal insurgency, not to mention the forthcoming Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, now just over a week away, which would need guarding against terrorist mischief.
The prospect of the dire scenario painted by the petitioner coming to pass cannot, of course, be dismissed out of hand. Possibly it is worries on this count that made Union home minister P. Chidambaram make a public appeal to all citizens on Wednesday to maintain calm when the title suit is decided. The Cabinet Committee on Security had also issued a similar appeal earlier. It is interesting to see, then, that the counsel of the contending parties to the dispute have expressed some surprise at the Supreme Court order, and maintain that they would rather have the high court give its judgment at the earliest. The Supreme Court’s intervention allows some room for negotiations between the Ayodhya disputing parties to come to a final settlement even at this late stage. It will be interesting to see what steps are now taken in this direction.